THE State Government awarded contracts worth more than $25 million last financial year without going to open tender.

The contracts included $340,000 for the appointment of a consultant to prepare the state’s submission to the National Broadband Network and up to $3 million for financial adviser Deloitte to provide advice about the sale of TOTE Tasmania.

The Department of Treasury and Finance annual report, tabled in Parliament last week, reveals 44 contracts were exempted from the normal tendering process last financial year, meaning there was no requirement for them to be publicly advertised.

This is disgusting…but not surprising. The whole lab/lib/gunns gov’t needs a complete independent investigation. There should be no more privileged jobs for mates or family.

Posted by Concerned Resident on 02/11/09 at 12:40 PM

It is curious that the Mercury reports that Treasury said the hospital reviews were done by KPMG, because it was the only company with a tailor-made product fit for the purpose.

Curious, because DHHS Deputy Secretary Strategy Planning and Performance, Catherine Katz, confirmed in an e-mail to Tasmanian Times in July, that the reviews were done by Ernst & Young.

Ms Katz said Ernst & Young was the only firm that could undertake a rapid review for the New Royal project - hence it had not gone out to tender. And a case for exemption from the Treasurer’s Instructions covering procurement policy - for Ernst & Young - was put to Treasury in August last year and approved in October. Subsequently, she said Treasury had approved a second review.

By way of background, DHHS Secretary David Roberts worked in association with Ernst & Young on a project in his former job with the NHS in the United Kingdom. And the 20-strong study tour of the UK and the US by Tasmanian health workers last year, included a one-day seminar in London in September given by Ernst & Young.

Why are there two differing versions of which firm undertook the reviews? One was confirmed by a senior DHHS bureaucrat, the other by Treasury. Is there a connection between KPMG and Ernst & Young, which has yet to be revealed?

Posted by Margaretta Pos on 02/11/09 at 12:57 PM

I first raised the issue of government tenders when the Transport Building in Hobart was sold for $100,000 in 2003. Lennon and Bacon at the time claimed asbestos removal costs would be onerous.

An extract from the ABC in 2003 follows:

“‘There wasn’t a lot of asbestos in the building’ site developer George Giameos told morning presenter Tim Cox.

‘The asbestos was removed two and a half weeks prior to the demolition starting,’ he added.

George said that during the 1980’s the Tasmanian Government removed asbestos from many buildings around town and the only asbestos that remained in the Transport Building was in two fire doors and a kitchen on the third floor.”

I also asked a question at the time whether or not any politician involved in the decision, member of their family or associated entity owned a unit in the development (no answer).

A new question for David Bartlett, “Given the history of the government failing to proceed to tender and follow standard administrative processes, why does your government still fail to adopt tender processes that maximise cost efficiencies and returns for the community?

Is everyone brain dead?

Posted by Mark on 02/11/09 at 04:28 PM

Mark (Post #3)

No, I think you’ll find they’re not brain dead. But they are feudal (think about it). That along with the ivory tower syndrome that tends to develop in any large organisation can lead to bad communication and massive cost inefficiencies.

Posted by Stephan on 03/11/09 at 06:58 AM

Tasmanian Times sought clarification from the Health Department’s communications unit yesterday, on whether KPMG or Ernst & Young carried out the hospital reviews.

DHHS deputy secretary Catherin Katz had previously confirmed they were done by Ernst & Young. But on Monday, the Mercury reported that: “A written response from Treasury said the hospital reviews were done by KPMG because it was the only company “with a tailor-made product fit for the purpose”.

The Government’s media office responded to our request, with documentation showing that Ms Katz was correct - the reviews were done by Ernst & Young.

Posted by Margaretta Pos on 04/11/09 at 10:53 AM

Further to my previous comment, I should have said that the documentation the Government’s media office sent Tasmanian Times, was the relevant section from the Treasurer’s Report.

Posted by Margaretta Pos on 04/11/09 at 11:00 AM

Another stuff up on your part Margaretta Pos.
Further proof you should stick to the Battery Point Bugle. Battery Point is a seething cauldron of organised crime, sexual perversion of the worst kind and corruption.
And what are you doing?
Continually throwing mud at the Health Department for some obscure reason.
Get back to Battery Point and expose the goings on there!
Jake Evermore

Posted by Jake Evermore on 05/11/09 at 07:50 AM

If you go look at the DHHS 2008-09 annual report and compare pg 127 (FOI reporting) with the Ombudsman 2008-09 annual report pg 12. You will notice that DHHS reported to Parliament that they only had 3 FOI reviews undertaken by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman reports that there were infact 12 applications for reviews with 7 undertaken, resulting in 3 variations. DHHS got their reporting wrong for some reason.Left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing.

Posted by Bob Terwilliger on 05/11/09 at 03:18 PM

Actually Jake 7#, the ‘stuff up’ was made by the Mercury. As for the cauldron of crime in Battery Point, if you know so much about it, why don’t you expose it?

Posted by Margaretta Pos on 05/11/09 at 06:50 PM

Hold on there Ms Pos.
Don’t get on your high horse with me!
Based on a typo in the Mercury YOU have come up with a conspiracy theory to rival that of Roswell in 1947. A conspiracist view can suppress awkward pieces of information by toying with the notion that events have been covered up by the authorities to suit their own ends: encounters with alien space ships, the real makers of the Lockerbie bomb and the truth about Rudolf Hess have all been hidden from the public but the
likes of you Ms Pos are in the know!

I will meet you in the Post Office in Hampden Rd tomorrow morning at 10am and hand you all the evidence you need for the Battery Point cauldron of crime. I will have a white stick and dark glasses. I will be trying to lick a stamp. You come to my aid and I will slip you the evidence in a brown paper bag.
Jake

Posted by Jake Evermore on 06/11/09 at 08:34 AM

Dear Jake #10, I would be there, but I will be with my mother and she takes precedence. As for the typo, it wasn’t; it was a mistake (and who can cast the first stone), hence my enquiry. The record is now straight. Au revoir.

Posted by Margaretta Pos on 06/11/09 at 11:00 AM

The record is not straight dear!
You tried to turn it into a conspiracy.
Sorry you won’t be at the post office.
you are missing out on a sensational story there.
And it is all fact. Is that the problem? It is fact and not conspiracy??

Jake Evermore

Posted by Jake Evermore on 06/11/09 at 06:48 PM

You know Jake, so far as I know, only journos use the expression ‘typo’ for a mistake in a newspaper that is a typing error. Given your dislike of me, I assume because of my support for greater public access to the Battery Point foreshore, and your use of the term, #10, it sets me to thinking about journos - or former journos - who might live in the suburb. But hey, I don’t want to make a conspiracy out of it!

Posted by Margaretta Pos on 08/11/09 at 10:41 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.